I've not seen any patches submitted that do this. The other things that do this are either different products, supplemental products, or forks that attempt entirely different things (but happen to do what you are after).
I expect a well implemented patch that does this would be accepted into the main branch. On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM, PlumbersStock.com < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It sounds as if this feature has been added by others already and > hasn't found it's way into the main tree. Maybe it just wasn't coded > well enough to make it in. It seems it should be a really simple > feature to add, that shouldn't interfere with the running cache in any > way, and those whose use of the cache would make using save/restore a > bad thing could just choose not to use it. I can understand not adding > features that would have a negative impact on the project but stuff > that is essentially painless I can't understand leaving out. Project > management is never fun. At least with open source projects if I have > to have the feature I don't have to pay $300+ an hour and wait months > to get it done. > > On Sep 10, 8:23 pm, "Stephen Johnston" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One would hope that any important contribution, written by a competent > > developer, would find it's way into the main trunk of code instead of > > forking. This is the catch-22 of open source. It really becomes a project > > managment excercise. > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:10 PM, PlumbersStock.com < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The problem with any software though is that if you can't convince the > > > owner of the software to add your feature into the main tree then > > > you're forever playing catchup. > -- "Be excellent to each other"
